Saturday, September 8, 2012

CONVERSATION WITH A BISHOP

A couple of days ago Bishop Gabriel Reyes of Antipolo diocese,
writing under the stationary of the Catholic Bishops Conference, published an
ad in the Inquirer and Philippine Star, expressing his
disagreement with the views of an unnamed columnist on the merits and demerits
of the RH Bill. The regular
readers of my columns in the Inquirer
immediately recognized that the Bishop was referring to me. I too recognized it
immediately as referring to me.

Not that I object to the reference to me nor to being
quoted. In fact I welcome the
bishop’s ad and take it as an invitation to dialogue. Dialogue among Christians, high and low, is highly
encouraged by the Church today. “In the modern world, the scandal is not
that Vatican officials would engage scientists who disagree with church
teaching, but rather that such engagement is regarded as taboo.”

The Bishop takes exception to my statement that “the state should
not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their
religious beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means,
to prevent people from acting according to their religious beliefs.” The Bishop says that he “would be happy
if the (non-abortifacient contraceptives) were banned” but that the Church is
only against the state promoting contraceptives and providing free
contraceptives to people.

From the bishop’s ad, I gather three points for dialogue. First,
the bishop says that now “anyone can buy contraceptives from drugstores or even
from ‘convenient stores.’” Second,
(but this is implicit) the state should not use public money to make
contraceptives freely available.
Third, the Church teaching on contraception is based not only on Faith
or revelation but also on natural law.

Let’s converse about these.

First, on easy availability of contraceptives in drugstores. The clear implication is that the world
is free and anyone can buy these.
This is simply not true.
Only those who have the money can buy them. Legislators, however, are thinking of the vast majority of
poor people who need help to be able to practice responsible parenthood.

It is good to remember that responsible parenthood means the
exercise of freedom. The exercise
of freedom is only possible if one has the capacity to choose. A person in shackles is not free to
move even if he wants to. The
government is thinking of the vast majority of poor and uninstructed people who
do not know what the choices are or who cannot afford to make their free choice
and are sometimes driven to abortion.
What the government hopes to do is not to compel them to use
contraceptives but to capacitate them to make their free choice and perhaps
even save them from abortion.

This, brings me to what I call the bishop’s second point. I say that the government can
only capacitate the poor to make their choice by using public money. Some would claim that the use of public
money or tax money for purposes contrary to some religious beliefs is an
illicit use of tax money. The
bishop does not say this in his ad but it is implicit in his desire that the
government should not distribute free contraceptives. Can tax money be used for this purpose?

One must distinguish between tax money and donated money. The use
of donated money is limited by intentio
dantis or the intention of the donor.
Tax money, on the other hand, can be used for any legitimate public
purpose authorized by Congress.
Tax money has no religious face.
Whether or not its use is licit can ultimately be decided by the Court.

But, and this is the bishop’s third point, natural law prohibits
contraception and natural law binds everyone because “By studying through
correct reasoning the nature of the human person, we arrive at this teaching
regarding contraception.”

One might flippantly answer by asking whose correct reasoning are
we talking about? Plato,
Aristotle, Aquinas, Grisez, Chapell, Finnis, etc.? But the statement deserves
more than just a flippant answer.
And it is not flippant to say that many serious thinkers have also
studied the human person and have not arrived at the conclusion that
contraception is evil. Serious
thinkers of other religions have not arrived at such conclusion and for that
reason the various religions in the Philippines are not of one mind on the
subject.

This necessarily brings us to the matter of free exercise of
religion and pluralism which are constitutionally protected. The bishop argues that by opposing the
RH Bill “the Church is not imposing its religious belief on others. She is trying to stop a bill which is
against natural law, a law which
all human beings, Catholic or not, should follow.” What he is saying is that pluralism should not include what
the natural law, as the Church sees it, prohibits.

I do not intend to dispute the meaning of natural law as the bishop
or the Church, to which I also belong, teaches. But I believe
that the bishop’s view is a very narrow understanding of the pluralism which is
part of our constitutional system.
Pluralism, which flows from freedom of religion, is not just about the plurality of
theistic religions. Neither is it
merely a matter of which God or god to worship. Constitutionally protected pluralism includes non-theistic
religions such as Budhism, ethical culture, secular humanism and a variety of
ethical philosophies. Of course,
it also includes the bishop’s understanding of natural law. But his understanding is just one of
the many including those which do not arrive at the bishop’s conclusion.

More power to you, Father Bernas!!! The Catholic Church (as well as the Senate) certainly needs more intelligent and wise individuals as yourself. I am a former Catholic that has long been disillusioned with many man-made teachings of the Catholic Church. I am currently reading the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I choose to believe) and it narrates how Jesus studied all the other religions in his journey to becoming a Master teacher himself. It is my personal opinion that throughout history, the Church has obfuscated Truth and that the teachings of Christ have been consciously misinterpreted and misrepresented to suit the needs of the Church as a historically political institution. You are truly a beacon of Light within the murkiness that is present day Catholicism! God bless you!

I admire your objective take on the issue and I agree with you on most points, but please father. Catholics read your articles and some are confused.

Why is this priest going against the bishops? Is it alright for Catholics to support the RH bill as it is now? Is it okay for Catholics in good conscience to use contraceptives?

I know you mean well by presenting these truths as they are and people deserve the truth. Nevertheless, people also deserve well and appropriate presentation of the truth, otherwise they misunderstand or become repulsive to it.

Please, father. Be more discreet. Maybe you can talk to the bishop privately first then decide together what appropriate course of action to take. Maybe you can issue a joint statement or at least clarify your stand on matters regarding contraception, as explicitly and plainly as possible so as not to cause confusion. Only enemies with the intent to defame the other "converse" publicly.

I personally am appreciative of the public discussion. It enables me to see that very earnest men are trying hard to sort out what is best for the Church and for Filipinos. Without the reasoned but faith-laden views of Father Bernas, I might conclude that the Catholic Church is a very destructive institution. I think it is a very good and important institution for those who need the spiritual care that can be found there. I believe the CBCP has become a political institution, and, in mucking around in the dirt of popular politics, is likely to find its robes occasionally splattered.

What I find unfortunate is that Fr. Bernas, who claims to adhere to the Catholic teaching on contraception, justifies his support for the RH Bill in the name of pluralism. True, we are in a pluralist society where there are diverse moral opinions on contraception, but PRECISELY because of this fact that he, as an influential Catholic, ought to champion the cause of truth on contraception which we Catholics are supposed to recognize and uphold, and ought to present this truth to our pluralist - and even relativist - society in a way that is reasonable and accessible to all. I understand if non-believers do not share this view of mine. Fr. Bernas, however, is a Catholic, and he claims he recognizes that contraception is morally evil. Now if one claims it is immoral, isn't it just proper that we try our best to convince others, with reasonable and secular arguments of course, that what we recognize as immoral, others can recognize it as immoral well? Pluralism is NOT relativism: yes to pluralism in matters of opinion, but no to relativism in matters of morality.

I am sorry but the way I understand pluralism is to acknowledge that there is a diversity of beliefs and therefore to respect each of them so that people could coexist in society. When this acknowledgment is put that in the context of religion, the state has the duty to safeguard each person's freedom in that matter. Therefore a law that goes against one group's religious beliefs is definitely against pluralism.

Father, I am sure you know the definition of authentic freedom, which is not the same as merely having choices. I may not be able to philosophize with you but I can only say that giving out contraceptives (which, I'd like to think that you agree with me, is evil) to poor people "in order to give them choices" is like giving a gun to a kid and telling him what he may do with it, in order to give him precisely what you want: choices. But is that for the good? You see, freedom is not just about having choices.

"Some would claim that the use of public money or tax money for purposes contrary to some religious beliefs is an illicit use of tax money." The issue here is religious freedom. The question should have been: "Should tax money be used for those purposes?"But then in your discussion, you changed it to: "Can tax money be used... ?"Didn't you want to argue against what you were proposing was implied by the bishop? You should have answered the first question sir.

Thank you Fr. Bernas for saving me from leaving the Catholic religion. The incredibly un-Christian thinking of bishops, of Sotto and of commenters such as Just Reason, Am, Renaissance Writer, Miek and humandignitysayeth is what drives me to think - the Catholic Church is not catholic at all.

I cannot understand why efforts of government to give poor mothers access to health care at government expense be regarded as evil and as promoting "killing of babies" - which is what I keep hearing over and over again at mass. (I am running out of churches to go to to honor the Lord, where I will not be subjected to accusations of favoring the "killing of babies".

"The negative side-effects of contraception are often ignored in our public discourse, but a truly free decision to use or not use them—and whether to use government to promote them—depends on a frank acknowledgement of their costs along with their alleged benefits."

By saying this, "Constitutionally protected pluralism includes non-theistic religions such as Budhism, ethical culture, secular humanism and a variety of ethical philosophies. Of course, it also includes the bishop’s understanding of natural law. But his understanding is just one of the many including those which do not arrive at the bishop’s conclusion. "

Fr. Bernas just essentially shot himself on the foot. He therefor says that the application of natural law is dependent on whether one accepts it or not or believes it or not or ones subjective understanding of it. The Catholic teaching on sexual morality, to Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, has very limited secular and societal application. Contraception and it's dangers, it's demographic consequences It is amusing that he talks about Buddhists and Atheitsts and ignores that 80% of the population of this country are Catholics! Funny jesuit double-speak. That is also what Fr. Villarin espouses in his half-handed response to the dissenting employees of the ADMU. The way the ADMU is headed, the bishops no longer have to threaten them with removing their Catholic mandate, we just have to wait a few more years and they are going to do it on their own, they are going to burn their own house down to roast their pig!

This argument by Fr. Julio Penacoba, with a purely ethical perspective, is a good response to whether contraceptives should be funded by the state and also to whether the use of contraceptives are good to begin with. So much clarity with his appeals to the fundamental principles of Ethics, no Church involved.

May I now invite him to complete not only his enlightenment but that of his countrymen and indeed the whole world.

Having admitted the fact of the plurality of religions, will the good Father now also admit:

1. That Truth is not singular but plural.2. That therefore Catholicism - nay, Christianity - is not the sole Truth.3. That people of other faiths - or even of no faith - are in possession of some Truth

I invite the Father to reconcile these paradoxes that flow from his admission of plurality.

I believe Fr Bernas is suffering from too much vanity and lacking the virtue of humility as he continues to act as a lawyer rather than being a priest. It would do a lot of soul searching on the part of Fr Bernas to even admit his mistakes. Instead he opts to go public with his dissenting opinion rather resolving his conflict privately.